TARIFF REFORM.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVI, Issue 31, 11 February 1904, Page 3

TARIFF REFORM.

IHE CO.NTROf 7 KKSV IN EX(iU.MI. LONDON, Feb. 9. Ijjrtl Curzon (Viceroy of India) states that ltteoitolers ot the Financial and Commercial Department of ' India have expressed an adverse opinion resjiecting the adoption ot a jpef#re«ee and retaliation policy. The Duke of Devonshire addressed an influential gathering of two thousand at the Guildhall, incl.ding Librd Avqbury, Lord Hadling-to-n, Baron Rothschild, Loid James of Hereford, Lord Wiiu'borne, Earl Qprrington, Lord Brussey, Earl Beauchamp, Viscount Hanipdeu, the Right Hon. C« T. Ritchie, Mr Winston Ohurqaill, M.P., Loid George Hamilton, ' b-i.xty.fjur Commoners and niany 'bankers aud financiers. The Duke of Devonshire contended that the people had already made a sacrifice to unite the Empire and if more were ncfc«*3al>; we ought t(0 know by whom it was to be made. Greatness of Empire'was not, securable (by such "sacrifices. Any change that was bad for the United Kingdom was bad for the Empire. Our tride was progressive. The disparity between imports and exports should not cause anxiety. Restriction of imports by protection was certain to limit protitaible employment. He ridiculed the Tarill Commission elaborating a milk and water imitation of German and tho McKinley tariffs, Mr Balfour's policy was a diivct contradiction of that Of the Tariff Reform Leatpie. IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON, Feb. U L The Right Hon. John Morley, in moving his amendment, stud it wa9 time the country learnt whether the Ministry was protectionist or antiprotectionist. There was no evidence that commerce was languishing. We must meet great oouipetitton by peajce, reduced expenditure and progressive educaitlioD) When the country was face to face with complications' in the Far East it ought to hus'txaitd its resources, and not plunge into financial collision by overtlirowingi the accepted- financial policy. The Kifjtit Hoe% Gerald Balfour -affirmed, tunid Opposition cUpers, that the Government's policy was not protectionist. Many members of the Government sympathised witb preference, (ij|i»t it woujd not exclude : on official policy. Wlopn the colonies offered preference and Europe threatened reprisals a change in the lismU system became urgent. He admitted that the destruction of British trade was not impending, : but the tendencies in that direction %ugkt to be considered. It was unreasonable to demand details of , GoiVennmeirt's reUUia.tory scheme, They did not* propose that the Executive should be empowered to retaliate without th# interposition of Parliament.; Sir Mickael Hicks-Beach said it .was unfair to call the l'rime Minister Mr OhaftU-jei'la n's tool; it would be more manly if some members of the Government had gone into the wilderness with Mr Cham •berlain to preach the new fiscal gospel. He .failed to see what useful purpose the amendment would serve. Retaliation was not a step towards Mr Chamberlain's policy, but was opposed to it. He would like to see retaliatory duties imposed immediately—ft was unnecessary . to await a general election. That "fKjUCi' must be ffissociaited from colonial "preference. Mr Chamuerlain's colonial enthusiasm led him too far. If colonial preference were adopted taxation of raw Matn-ifal would |tp inevitable. Tllo debate was adjourned.